• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%
  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%

  • Total voters
    93
Notice the amount of thanks I have along with the amount of posts? The fact I have been here over a year as well?

Obviously I can and do debate, and I am good at it.

Your attempt to somehow goad me are really lame.



Yes, it is. This debate has nothing to do with my faith or why I believe the way I do. It is supposed to be about gay marraige are you for or against.



It is not to complicated to understand, I never said such a thing. I said it is to complicated to explain. We mite as well hold a class on Philosophy or comparative religions. You seem to think I am under some kind of obligation to teach you about my faith and religion. I hate to inform you I am not.



If I was not taken seriously, this thread would not be so long.


Not my words.
First of all, please edit your post and properly attribute the quotes to me rather than Rassales. Although I am in full agreement with him, he may not be particularly happy to have my words accredited to him.
Oh and the final quote wasn't even mine!

As for your comments:

I don't regard the Thanks system as any indication of quality. There are a number of people here with Thanks coming out of their ears, but I wouldn't give them the time of day.

I didn't say you can't debate, I merely asked what the point was if you're not prepared to explain yourself. Big difference.

And I don't think you're under any obligation to "teach" anyone anything. But you are clearly reluctant to "explain" your position to me, so I don't care who else takes you seriously, until you do, I won't.
 
Last edited:
We have had plenty of debates that do not involve someone asking to explain the tenants of Christianity.
I don't normally pull people up on their spelling or grammar, but this is a pet hate:

"Tenants" are occupiers of rented accommodations. The principles you intended to mean are called "tenets."
 
Nope, don't watn to tell you you suck. Want to tell you you are apparently ignorant of what "seperation of church and state" means.

Well, if all I hear all the time is "God doesn't like it," then that's just what pops into my mind. I just want people to keep their religion and their beliefs out of other peoples' lives. I don't understand why that's so hard.

No, they're not.
Marriage as its defined in our law is not religious, let alone christian, so they're not being forced to abide by Christian rule.s
Furthermore, marriage being between a man and a woman is not unique to simply Christianity, so again, no you can't say simply because that's the definition they're being forced to abide by Christian Rules.
Even further, there are some agnostic and athiests that still believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, further showing that no, that notion is not simply Christian and thus it being law does not mean they're being forced to be Christian.

Okay, why are you ****ing arguing with me if you don't even disagree with me?
Fine, I'll just say I was wrong. Alright? Whatever. I don't give a ****. I'm so ****ing pissed off at this whole ****ing situation. People need to learn to just live and let live. That's the whole point in every ****ing thing I say.
People feel the need to butt their way into things that don't affect them. It's idiotic.
Whoever you are, whatever ****ing religion you follow, keep it to yourself. That's all I have to say to everyone. You don't have the ****ing right to impose your views on people who aren't ****ing doing anything.
Is that ****ing clear enough?

Then you shouldn't make comments like stating that if the term marriage remains as between a man and a woman its essentially forcing gay people to be Christians. OR, when someone informs you of the error of that, you should look into it or acknowledge it.
Off the top of my head I believe Jews and Muslims also believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Yes, I'm acknowledging that I fail at religion. Yes, I will probably look into it sometime.

Doesn't matter, not the argument I'm making. YOU stated that because there was a law on the books that happened to coincide with Christian thinking on the matter that somehow that is "forcing" people to essentially be Christian. If that was the case then all those things above ALSO coincide with Christian thinking and thus would apply also.

Well, it's the argument I'm making. I've already stated that I know basically nothing of religion.
Murder harms people.
Adultery harms people.
Thievery harms people.
Homosexuality does not harm people.
Can you prove me wrong?

First, you don't apparently know what seperation of church and state is. You can "believe" we don't all you want, that doesn't make it true. People voting based on their religious beliefs does not have anything to do with Seperation of Church and State.
Here, I'll help you.
Point me out the law where the government establishes a state religion, mandates a following of religion, or forbids a following of religion.
I'll wait.

People voting based on their religious beliefs counts to me. I just want people to get a ****ing life of their own and stay out of everyone else's.
You know I won't find a law that states that. My point is that I want people of religion and bigotry to separate themselves from other people.
Do they not have anything better to do than to make people unhappy?

Second, that's extremely narrow minded of you. I'm not even against gay marriage but I'm not so bigoted against anyone that dares disagree with me that I hyper stereotype them. Do you honestly believe 100% of non-religious people either agree with you or are bigots? Here's a few off the top of my head:

Yes, that is what I honestly believe.
Again, why did you even bother responding to me if you're on my side?

1. Believing the government interest in marriage is related to the raising of a family and believing a traditional family offers the best chance for a child

It's silly to think that heterosexual parents do a better job than homosexual ones. As long as it's a loving household, the child will do just fine. The parents' sexual preferences don't have any effect on the child.
Except for when they get into school, they might be teased if the other kids find out about it. But kids will always find ways to tease each other. It doesn't mean anything and if they have a nice, stable home to go back to, it won't matter to them, either.

2. Someone who is a staunch traditionalist, that realizes while perhaps "Seperate but equal" the attempt to use that phrase to harken back to the civil rights age is a bit dishonest as at those times the facilities/benefits under a different name were actually worse which would be different from this case where everything else would literally be equal.

Wow, this was a little confusing to read. But anyways, no, it's not dishonest because this is almost exactly the same. Lots of people didn't want women to vote or do anything else for ****ing stupid reasons during the Women's Rights Movement. Lots of people didn't want black people to vote or do anything else for ****ing stupid reasons during the Civil Rights Movement. This is now the Gay Rights Movement.

3. Someone that believes the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and thus is against adding more to it, thus making it harder to remove

What? Adding more to it? Like actually giving everyone the right to be married?

Are they great reasons? No. But at times some of the reasons people who want it give also aren't great. But they're at least legitimate opinions that aren't simply "bigotry". Lest you want to simply say "bigotry" is anyone that disagree's with you which seems to be the MO here.

I'd like to hear some of the reasons that are for gay marriage that "aren't great."
Also, the reasons on my side of the argument are much better than the other side. There's so many...
If my beliefs are stemming from the desire to help a group of people who are discriminated against for no ****ing reason, then I'd say that anyone who disagrees is either a bigot, or just religious. I don't have a problem with religious people. I just believe that they shouldn't try and force it on other people.
As for bigots, they're just intolerant and that pisses me off. They don't care about anyone but themselves.
Nobody has the right to judge anyone, so why not just let them get married. They're not bad people.

Gotcha, so if they're religious and would vote based on their morals you don't want them to vote. Got it, you're intolerant to religious people. They have as much right to vote based on their views, morals, and philosophies as you or anyone else.

Why are you being like this?
I'm saying that if they're trying to force their views and moral compass on to other people, it's wrong. It sucks that they can vote based on that. They don't understand that homosexuals are doing nothing wrong.
It's like they've never heard, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
They wouldn't like it if another religious group came along with their book and started telling them they were wrong for being whatever skin color they are according to their bible.
It's only because they're in the majority that this is happening.
 
I really want everyone to know that I'm not intolerant of religious people. Look, I was talking to my mother earlier this morning and we ended up discussing these forums. She always asks me why I keep coming on here because it just makes me so angry. I don't know why.
Anyways, she grew up religious. My grandfather was the pastor of their church. They had to always be obedient and they had no mind-set of their own. This is what she told me.
She eventually developed her own opinions and thinks for herself. She told me that she can relate to the religious people on these forums. She can understand where they're coming from. It's all fear-based.
She said you can't let it rule your life. You have to think for yourself.
That's all.
 
I am not even going to bother to respond to most the lunacy I have witnessed today.

In the end, I will still vote and rally against it. I have no idea how this puts me at odds with the Constitution, and it's not like I care. I will continue to stand up for what I believe in and you can save your rants for someone who mite care.

Uhm...I'm sorry?
You're not going to respond after I responded to you?
Is it because I'm right? I put some pretty good questions in there that I was looking forward to you answering.
 
You do realize trying to tell people you're not intolerant of religious people, trying to empathize with them and identify with them by telling a story about your mother and her extremely strict grandfather, and in the end telling them you understand them and its okay because you know they all believe what they do simply because of fear and because they're mindlessly obidient isn't helping your case but is just patronizing and insulting....right?

It'd be like someone saying that they don't really mind gay people, and empathize with you about it because their dad was gay at one point because his uncle touched him in a bad place, so they understand how you view things the way you do because of a bad childhood but don't want you imposing your views on them.

You're trying to empathize, but you're grossly stereotyping and belittling them.

I understand your attempt, and I think you're honestly honestly wanting to be nice about this...but your words really, really aren't coming across that way.
 
Last edited:
You do realize trying to tell people you're not intolerant of religious people, trying to empathize with them and identify with them by telling a story about your mother and her extremely strict grandfather, and in the end telling them you understand them and its okay because you know they all believe what they do simply because of fear and because they're mindlessly obidient isn't helping your case but is just patronizing and insulting....right?

It'd be like someone saying that they don't really mind gay people, and empathize with you about it because their dad was gay at one point because his uncle touched him in a bad place, so they understand how you view things the way you do because of a bad childhood but don't want you imposing your views on them.

You're trying to empathize, but you're grossly stereotyping and belittling them.

I understand your attempt, and I think you're honestly honestly wanting to be nice about this...but your words really, really aren't coming across that way.

Okay, I posted that because that's what she said to me and it made sense.
It's all fear, that's what it is. I am not stereotyping or belittling anyone. I completely understand and I'm glad my mother didn't raise me that way.
I just want people to think for themselves. You can't just follow the crowd all the time.
I am honestly wanting to be nice about this. I would never say anything bad where my own mother is concerned.
 
Here, I'll shorten it up for you. I'll post my response one piece at a time.

Tell me, blackdog, what do you think about my Christian family completely agreeing with me?
I'm pretty much taking some of the things I say right out of their mouths.
I believe everything they say because I'm pretty sure they know what they're talking about.
Now, my grandfather was a pastor of a church he helped to build. He know the bible inside and out, I kid you not.
He agrees with me. He doesn't believe there should be any discrimination against homosexuality for whatever the reason may be.
 
I don't normally pull people up on their spelling or grammar, but this is a pet hate:

"Tenants" are occupiers of rented accommodations. The principles you intended to mean are called "tenets."

ad hom, nice. :roll:
 
Uh...this time it wasn't even a rant. It was just a long response.

It was indeed a rant repeating the same "your horrible" "innocent people" again and again.

Like I said, be happy.
 
First of all, please edit your post and properly attribute the quotes to me rather than Rassales. Although I am in full agreement with him, he may not be particularly happy to have my words accredited to him.

That is what happens when debating allot of people at the same time. Get over it. :roll:

Oh and the final quote wasn't even mine!

Oh sorry about that.

As for your comments:

I don't regard the Thanks system as any indication of quality. There are a number of people here with Thanks coming out of their ears, but I wouldn't give them the time of day.

OK

I didn't say you can't debate, I merely asked what the point was if you're not prepared to explain yourself. Big difference.

I did explain myself. You don't like that I will not add more detail. So what?

And I don't think you're under any obligation to "teach" anyone anything. But you are clearly reluctant to "explain" your position to me, so I don't care who else takes you seriously, until you do, I won't.

I explained my position and why, just because you don't like the answer makes no real difference to me one way or the other. The details of my faith are irrelevant, so oh well.
 
Oh, get over it. It's just an observation, not an ad hom. Those kind of things drive me mad too.

It is an ad hom that had nothing to do with the post. You get over it.
 
ad hom, nice. :roll:
Not hardly. It was a small aside to the topic, but it was not an attack, nor an argument, nor directed at you personally; all of which would have to be true to make it an ad hominem argument. It was merely a piece of knowledge you will hopefully find useful in the future...
 
Last edited:
Not hardly. It was a small aside to the topic, but it was not an attack, nor an argument, nor directed at you personally; all of which would have to be true to make it an ad hominem argument. It was merely a piece of knowledge you will hopefully find useful in the future...

It is against the forum rules and considered an ad hom.
 
It was indeed a rant repeating the same "your horrible" "innocent people" again and again.

Like I said, be happy.

What's wrong with saying that?
Just because I'm trying to be a good person and fight for people who are innocent doesn't make whatever I'm saying a "rant" if I happen to say it.
 
What's wrong with saying that?
Just because I'm trying to be a good person and fight for people who are innocent doesn't make whatever I'm saying a "rant" if I happen to say it.

That is not what made it a rant.

Please read why I said it was a rant.
 
It is against the forum rules and considered an ad hom.

It's about as insulting as "your rant is not worth responding to" or something like that.
 
It's about as insulting as "your rant is not worth responding to" or something like that.

Not even close. :roll:

Now you are going way off topic. You need to drop it.
 
That is what happens when debating allot of people at the same time. Get over it.
Well try harder in future.


I did explain myself. You don't like that I will not add more detail. So what?



I explained my position and why, just because you don't like the answer makes no real difference to me one way or the other. The details of my faith are irrelevant, so oh well.
Oh really? Where did you do that. All I've seen is you saying it's too complicated. That's not an explanation, it's an excuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom